18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinical risk in remote consultations in general practice: findings from in-COVID-19 pandemic qualitative research

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The COVID-19 pandemic-related rise in remote consulting raises questions about the nature and type of risks in remote general practice.

          Aim

          To develop an empirically based and theory-informed taxonomy of risks associated with remote consultations.

          Design & setting

          Qualitative sub-study of data selected from the wider datasets of three large, multi-site, mixed-method studies of remote care in general practice before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

          Method

          Semi-structured interviews and focus groups, with a total of 176 clinicians and 43 patients. Data were analysed thematically, taking account of an existing framework of domains of clinical risk.

          Results

          The COVID-19 pandemic brought changes to estates (for example, how waiting rooms were used), access pathways, technologies, and interpersonal interactions. Six domains of risk were evident in relation to the following: (1) practice set-up and organisation (including digital inequalities of access, technology failure, and reduced service efficiency); (2) communication and the clinical relationship (including a shift to more transactional consultations); (3) quality of clinical care (including missed diagnoses, safeguarding challenges, over-investigation, and over-treatment); (4) increased burden on the patient (for example, to self-examine and navigate between services); (5) reduced opportunities for screening and managing the social determinants of health; and (6) workforce (including increased clinician stress and fewer opportunities for learning).

          Conclusion

          Notwithstanding potential benefits, if remote consultations are to work safely, risks must be actively mitigated by measures that include digital inclusion strategies, enhanced safety-netting, and training and support for staff.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Implementation of remote consulting in UK primary care following the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods longitudinal study

          Background To reduce contagion of COVID-19, in March 2020 UK general practices implemented predominantly remote consulting via telephone, video, or online consultation platforms. Aim To investigate the rapid implementation of remote consulting and explore impact over the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design and setting Mixed-methods study in 21 general practices in Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. Method Longitudinal observational quantitative analysis compared volume and type of consultation in April to July 2020 with April to July 2019. Negative binomial models were used to identify if changes differed among different groups of patients. Qualitative data from 87 longitudinal interviews with practice staff in four rounds investigated practices’ experience of the move to remote consulting, challenges faced, and solutions. A thematic analysis utilised Normalisation Process Theory. Results There was universal consensus that remote consulting was necessary. This drove a rapid change to 90% remote GP consulting (46% for nurses) by April 2020. Consultation rates reduced in April to July 2020 compared to 2019; GPs and nurses maintained a focus on older patients, shielding patients, and patients with poor mental health. Telephone consulting was sufficient for many patient problems, video consulting was used more rarely, and was less essential as lockdown eased. SMS-messaging increased more than three-fold. GPs were concerned about increased clinical risk and some had difficulties setting thresholds for seeing patients face-to-face as lockdown eased. Conclusion The shift to remote consulting was successful and a focus maintained on vulnerable patients. It was driven by the imperative to reduce contagion and may have risks; post-pandemic, the model will need adjustment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Resilience, burnout and coping mechanisms in UK doctors: a cross-sectional study

            Aims This cross-sectional study aimed to assess resilience, professional quality of life and coping mechanisms in UK doctors. It also aimed to assess the impact of demographic variables, such as sex, grade and specialty on these factors. Methods During October and November 2018, medical doctors in the UK were eligible to complete an online survey made up of validated psychological instruments. Royal Colleges and other medical organisations invited their membership to participate via newsletters, email invitations, websites and social media. Results 1651 doctors participated from a wide range of specialties and grades across the UK. The mean resilience score was 65.01 (SD 12.3), lower than population norms. Of those who responded, 31.5% had high burnout (BO), 26.2% had high secondary traumatic stress and 30.7% had low compassion satisfaction (CS). Doctors who responded from emergency medicine were more burned out than any other specialty group (F=2.62, p=0.001, df 14). Those who responded from general practice scored lowest for CS (F=6.43, p<0.001, df 14). 120 (8%) doctors met the criteria for all three of high BO, high STS and low CS. The most frequently reported coping mechanism was the maladaptive strategy of self-distraction. Conclusions One-third of UK doctors who responded are burned out and suffering from STS. Those who responded from emergency medicine and general practice appear to be suffering the most. Over 100 doctors fell into the at-risk category of high BO, high STS and low CS. Future analysis of the free text responses from doctors may help to identify factors that are playing a role in the high levels of BO and STS being reported by medical staff.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services: A New Conceptual Framework Incorporating Complexity and Practical Ethics

              Establishing and running remote consultation services is challenging politically (interest groups may gain or lose), organizationally (remote consulting requires implementation work and new roles and workflows), economically (costs and benefits are unevenly distributed across the system), technically (excellent care needs dependable links and high-quality audio and images), relationally (interpersonal interactions are altered), and clinically (patients are unique, some examinations require contact, and clinicians have deeply-held habits, dispositions and norms). Many of these challenges have an under-examined ethical dimension. In this paper, we present a novel framework, Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services (PERCS), built from a literature review and ongoing research. PERCS has 7 domains—the reason for consulting, the patient, the clinical relationship, the home and family, technologies, staff, the healthcare organization, and the wider system—and considers how these domains interact and evolve over time as a complex system. It focuses attention on the organization's digital maturity and digital inclusion efforts. We have found that both during and beyond the pandemic, policymakers envisaged an efficient, safe and accessible remote consultation service delivered through state-of-the art digital technologies and implemented via rational allocation criteria and quality standards. In contrast, our empirical data reveal that strategic decisions about establishing remote consultation services, allocation decisions for appointment type (phone, video, e-, face-to-face), and clinical decisions when consulting remotely are fraught with contradictions and tensions—for example, between demand management and patient choice—leading to both large- and small-scale ethical dilemmas for managers, support staff, and clinicians. These dilemmas cannot be resolved by standard operating procedures or algorithms. Rather, they must be managed by attending to here-and-now practicalities and emergent narratives, drawing on guiding principles applied with contextual judgement. We complement the PERCS framework with a set of principles for informing its application in practice, including education of professionals and patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BJGP Open
                BJGP Open
                bjgpoa
                bjgpoa
                BJGP Open
                Royal College of General Practitioners
                2398-3795
                September 2022
                29 June 2022
                29 June 2022
                : 6
                : 3
                : BJGPO.2021.0204
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Nuffield Trust , London, UK
                [2 ] deptNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [3 ] deptCommunity and Primary Care Research Group , University of Plymouth , Plymouth, UK
                Author notes
                *For correspondence: Rebecca Rosen, rebecca.rosen@ 123456nuffieldtrust.org.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2930-1125
                Article
                0204
                10.3399/BJGPO.2021.0204
                9680756
                35487581
                d71ad19c-49e7-4769-95b8-bae560d6d598
                Copyright © 2022, The Authors

                This article is Open Access: CC BY license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

                History
                : 21 October 2021
                : 05 January 2022
                : 18 January 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                InDesignSetterCC
                1650924994087
                Affiliation 1 was changed
                Author was changed
                Keyword was changed
                Funding was changed
                Acknowledgement was changed

                remote consultations,clinical risk,general practice,family practice,telemedicine,safeguarding

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content131

                Cited by19

                Most referenced authors163